Bavarianrider wrote:Ullrich in 1997 was just marking Virenque. There's little doubt he could have gone faster if he pushed himself to the limit.He was in the 6.5 -7 Watt/ Kilo range on multiple stages that year.In 2000 though, Joux Plane was his best day of the tour and he was going all out. Yet he only managed 5.9Watt/ Kilo.

5.9 to 6,5 that's a difference in power of 9%. Pretty much the difference you would excpect between clean and blood manipulated.

FoxxyBrown1111 wrote:Yes, maybe true that it was a three year period of leveled playing field as possible (if we look solely at the TdF).In 97 teams still figured out how to circumvent the 50% rule.In 98 teams were feared to death, flushing most of their PEDs down the toilet (IOW: shortage of PEDs as numerous time witnesses told)In 99 teams were still feared to death, but one (LA didn´t care if he goes to a french prison, thus this reckless idea with the motoman. It was kind of roulette)...

After all, that´s more years that worked well enough for a level playing field, than the one or two when the BP was to some extend effective...

The 50% rule is not a level playing field! It's nice for good responders with a lower natural HCT, but the few guys with a high natural HCT have no chance at all. I don't think that Jan with 43% HCT would be a great climber, he'd have been very similar to Tony Martin and could have won a few TdF that had a classic route like those that they had in the 80ies with +120km of ITT, but that's just my personal opinion and pure speculation.

While as a professional cyclist no one is "fat" at the TdF, 3-4 kilos too much make a huge difference uphill (sth like 1:30 -2 min for a typical 40-50 min climb).

In 1997, the difference is VISIBLE compared with 2000. That means it must be at least 3 kilos because 1 kilo would be very difficult to see in such athletes. You can see that both his upper legs and his arms are thinner ( and you see the muscles coming out everywhere, sign of a very low body fat) :

EDIT: Compare also to the photo 1 post above...from the side...1997 vs 2001....the area around the knees. Just all around thinner in 1997.

webvan wrote:It does seem that by 2006 he'd given up on the ridiculous muscle mass that didn't achieve much for him...

@Bavarianrider - the calves, the calves, in 1997 they were still as skinny as in 1996 ;-)

its nigh on impossible to lose functional muscle mass/tissue unless you take some of these new drugs like AOD9604/lipotropin , and what Ullrich had in his calves and buttocks and hamstrings/quads, was functional tissue. That is why it is BS when Froome Horner Wiggins turn up 10% lighter when a significant proportion of that weight, is functional tissue. To lose that type of tissue, you need to be in such caloric deficit, and to be in such caloric deficit, you will not be able to train at peak fitness. then you will not be able to burn the tissue. its a feedback loop.

you cant lose functional muscle, when you need that muscle to be at 100% in pro sport.

This is why, Usain Bolt, he world record set in Beijing, will be the fastest he will ever go, because he is about 6'5" and 94 kg. At Beijing, he was about 88kg.

Now he has to get out of the blocks, and accelerate that extra 6kg of muscle, to terminal velocity. Do the applied physics calculation and summation of that. Once he reaches terminal velocity, i think the weight does not become a barrier, in fact, it might help for speed endurance at that speed.

And it might be good for the last few kmph in the terminal velocity, the extra muscle. But it slows him down getting up to the terminal velocity. Even if all 6 kg, is 100% muscle, and functional (as it no doubt is)

Putting on the extra weight will impinge Bolt's time and speed. But all the androgens and new peptides and growth factors, it was not in Bolt's ability to maintain a low bodyweight. He could not have maintained the 88kg 9'5" phsique. All the hgh and other roids and testo and growth factors, he was always gonna outgrow the 88kg.

Like Der Kaiser's calves and legs and b utt. It was always gonna get more muscle that could not be lost. Unless he could acess the new drugs to market that Wiggins and Froome and Horner have been able to access.

FoxxyBrown1111 wrote:Yes, maybe true that it was a three year period of leveled playing field as possible (if we look solely at the TdF).In 97 teams still figured out how to circumvent the 50% rule.In 98 teams were feared to death, flushing most of their PEDs down the toilet (IOW: shortage of PEDs as numerous time witnesses told)In 99 teams were still feared to death, but one (LA didn´t care if he goes to a french prison, thus this reckless idea with the motoman. It was kind of roulette)...

After all, that´s more years that worked well enough for a level playing field, than the one or two when the BP was to some extend effective...

All of this assumes the UCI was some sort of impartial anti-doping enforcer and we know *for sure* it was far from it. Verbruggen was perfectly okay with doping. As long as it grew the sport and his bank account.

In any case, Ullrich in 2000/2001 was still pretty lean, even if he might have been a little stronger in total muscle mass.
Explaining his decline in the mountains because of those tiny differences certainly is a very long shot, or ridicilous actually.
I totally agree with you on that for 03-05, in those years his legs simple were too muscular, but not for 2000 and certainly not for 2001.
In my opinion Ullrich looked his very best in 2001. Absolutely perefect proportions and body fat level.
This wasn't Aicar age guys, aliens like Froome didn't exist back then. Or at least were a very rare thing.